‘RIGHT ON’: THE NEW REPUBLIC EVISCERATES CRITICS OF THE HELMS-BURTON CUBAN DEMOCRACY ACT

(Washington, D.C.): Last week, President Clinton
announced that he would prevent the immediate
implementation of provisions of the Cuban Democracy Act,
known for its chief sponsors, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) and
Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN). As the William J. Casey Institute
of the Center for Security Policy noted at the time, ⁽¹⁾ such action
represented a deplorable capitulation to foreign pressure
in the face of a clear national interest in cutting off
the economic life-support to Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

The provisions in question would allow American
citizens to sue Canadian, European and other foreign
companies in U.S. courts over their use of assets seized
by the Castro regime. Allied governments representing the
affected companies have tried to downplay the
significance of the sustaining effect their hard currency
investments and operations are providing Cuba’s communist
dictatorship. They contend, instead, that “economic
engagement” will do more to liberalize the Cuban
dictatorship than will the sort of effective multilateral
boycott sought by successive U.S. administrations. As
usual, members of the American foreign policy
establishment and their many admirers in the press have
parroted this line, contributing to the pressure that
prompted Mr. Clinton to waffle on implementing the
relevant portions of the Helms-Burton act.

Mirabile Dictu

This backdrop makes all the more remarkable a recent
article by an author not generally associated with the
likes of Messrs. Helms and Burton that appears in the
current edition of a highly regarded, mainstream public
policy journal — the New Republic.
The attached article, entitled “Canada
Sly,” was written by Charles Lane.
It exposes such arguments for what they are — an attempt
to mask the unadulterated greed that drives
these companies to cooperate with a totalitarian regime
like Castro’s. Among Lane’s most damning insights are the
following:

“…These foreign operations are a
caricature of competitive capitalism. Their
impact is anything but subversive. Rather, they
reinforce Castro’s grip on power, just as
American banana companies once bolstered the comprador
elites of Central America. What’s really
‘offensive’ is the moral obtuseness with which
the political and business elites of Europe and
Canada view Castro’s dictatorship, and the
sanctimony with which they exploit Helms-Burton
to vent cheap anti-American sentiment.

“When Canadian investors come to Havana,
they don’t shop around for partners among the
Cuban populace at large; the average Cuban can’t
own private property, much less engage in
ventures with foreigners. All deals are
negotiated with the government, often with Fidel
personally. No competitive bids, no international
tender offers in the Economist, just a
nod from the man in charge…”

“…Canadian companies agree in advance
to hire their Cuban workers through the island’s
national employment agency, which is controlled
by the Communist Party — and vets workers for
political obedience. Simon Cooper, a Canadian
hotelier on the island, told the [Toronto] Globe
and Mail that he makes sure not to
be ‘perceived as contracting directly with
individuals [or] encouraging a free market in any
way.” (Emphasis in original.)

The Bottom Line

Charles Lane’s blistering critique of the allies’
hypocrisy and self-serving deceit underscores the
importance of resisting their demands that Helms-Burton’s
key provisions be permanently waived. The Casey Institute
takes heart in this respect from the recent adoption in
both houses of Congress of legislation intended to impose
similar economic disincentives on foreign companies doing
business with two other malevolent regimes: Iran and
Libya.

The Lane article also adds urgency to the Institute’s
recent recommendation that the United States make
it:

“a non-negotiable
condition of any further conversations with
allied governments about implementation of the
Helms-Burton legislation that all
European and Canadian assistance to the Cuban
nuclear reactor complex at Juragua — including
the supplying of any component, technical
assistance or financing — must be permanently
halted. As the nature of the flaws in
these reactors are systemic (e.g., myriad faulty
welds in the cooling system; some 60% defective
equipment; rampant corrosion; design problems in
the reactor dome and elsewhere, etc.), no
amount of Western assistance short of
demolition and a complete fresh start will
significantly address these reactors’ critical
safety deficiencies.

“By denying the Castro regime the ability
to correct its current 15-20% energy shortfall —
to say nothing of substantially expanding the
output of its electrical production capability
needed to satisfy the requirements of prospective
tourist and industrial (notably, mining) concerns
— the U.S. can obtain a two-fer: 1) protecting
the American people against a potential
nuclear catastrophe and 2) greatly increasing the
chances that the objective of the Libertad
Act, namely, freedom at long last for the
beleaguered Cuban population, will
actually be met.”

– 30 –

1. See the Center’s Perspective
entitled The Price of Compromise on
Helms-Burton Must Be Nothing Less Than an End to European
Help for the Coming Cuban ‘Chernobyl’ ( href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=96-C_69″>No. 96-C 69, 17 July 1996).